The normal Audyssey has 6 positions & their higher end system has even more. Personally I would lose interest after 6 positions & for most home setups, 6 is more than adequate.

As for CC Speaker vs Phantom Mode, after playing around with them yesterday, I'm staying with my Sony CC speaker (space limitations). Even though it is not an Axiom & not exactly timbre matched as I've stated before, I suffer absolutely no detrimental effects when enjoying normal real-life material. The only place I hear any small difference is during pink noise test tones; however, the center Audyssey ping test tones sounded quite similar to the L & R M22s.

Good call on going for another calibration. That's awesome it's sounding better. So with Audyssey, you get to do the calibration from 6 different listening positions? That's pretty incredible. I only saw my dad do it from 1 listening position through MCACC on his Pioneer Elite.

I've just been reading some more about subwoofers...lol I just can't help myself. I like something that quakes hard.

What is everyone's opinion on Submersive? I just stumbled across them. I'm reading a good handful of people have went from SVS to submersive, but no one really goes from submersive to SVS.

MCACC will also allow you to do a multi-point calibration. I haven't tried it yet because I always sit in the same spot but the option is there.

Not the same thing. Audyssey does 6-8 positions for the same seating position. MCACC does 1 position for up to 6 seating positions.

Not the same thing. Audyssey does 6-8 positions for the same seating position. MCACC does 1 position for up to 6 seating positions.

If I understand you correctly, I think it would be more intelligible as

Quote:

Audyssey does 6-8 measurements from different locations to optimize one seating position. MCACC does 1 measurement each for up to 6 seating positions.

But that does kind of beg the question about how far apart the positions can/should be, or how MCACC manages to optimize the listening experience in so many different places at once. Magic?

Point being, this is some heavy duty science and technology, but at its heart, choices and compromises are being made by each system. Personally, I'm pretty happy with Audyssey but I can't really do much with my room. I think any of these systems should be a last resort, WAY down the list from speaker placement and room treatments. We spend a lot of money on components, recordings and speakers to hear "what really happened" and - no matter how smart they are - these systems necessarily make changes to what can otherwise be a pretty pure path.

That's much wider than I understand it. I would only move the mic from 1 to 2 feet at a time, making a much smaller sample area. When I first tried it I was moving the mic much too far and getting unpleasant results. But if it works for you, who's to complain. I think I would try it again and move the mic about half as far next time.

I don't know if it matters (probably not), but the charts I've seen put the first 3 measurements in the row at the seating position, then the next 3 about 1-2 feet closer to the mains. Definitely don't put the mic outside of the mains.

Tom, the sequence of measurements isn't important, but there's no need to try to include alternate listening positions as measurement points. As Brian mentions, it's suggested that the successive measurements(use as many as possible)be only a foot or two from each other. These small differences nevertheless give more data points for Audyssey to work with to create a picture of room variations. Even a listening position somewhat outside the measuring points would benefit.